Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad
I think at some points (i.e arrows) the difference between Pi++ and Imp as distinct different things kind of just breaks down.
|
The way I understand it, there are basically three different wounding modes covered by Imp and Pi. One is having a tiny sharp point enter the target, then using that beachhead to let the wider parts of the weapon enter by pushing material aside. Spears made entirely of wood, estocs, and similar use this method. I think armor piercing rifle rounds do as well, but once they're in their high velocity, low weight, and tendency to tumble make them behave more like option 3 (see later). The second is similar, except the wider parts of the projectile are thin and sharp and actually cut into the target rather than just pushing material aside. This is what you see with typical spears and arrows, as well as swords. The third option is to have a relatively blunt object flung at the target at such a high velocity it goes through it, crushing a path through whatever is in the way. This is the way bullets work.
In terms of armor penetration, the first is Imp, the second is sort of like an Imp/Cut fusion, and the third is Pi. For DR that differentiates, if you want to have really high resolution, the second would probably give DR roughly halfway between what the target has against Imp and what it has against Cut (if it somehow has better DR against Imp than Cut, just treat it as Cut). Note this is probably is only appropriate if the sharp edges are fairly wide (enough so that if they were blunt the projectile would have trouble pushing material aside to get past the armor).
In terms of wounding, the first and third are fairly similar, primarily involving a wound channel that consists of a lot of crushed tissue. The second is a bit different, as the wound channel is likely wider but thinner, and also consists more of cut tissue than crushed tissue. All three rely more on going deep to hit something important than on outright wrecking the body, so all three would be susceptible to reduction from IT:Unliving and IT:Homogeneous. When IT:DR and Vulnerability are involved, however, they could be treated differently. IT:DR/Vulnerability to Cutting (representing tissue that's harder or easier to cut) would probably apply normally to the second option. IT:DR/Vulnerability to Imp (representing tissue that's harder or easier to punch through with a sharp tip) would probably apply to the first and second, while IT:DR/Vulnerability to Cr (representing tissue that is rarely or easily crushed/broken) could probably apply to the first and third. You could also have a general IT:DR/Vulnerability to Imp and Pi (representing redundant/resilient internal organs, or those particularly susceptible to disruption) that would apply to all three, and would basically be the IT:DR/Vulnerability equivalent of the Living-Unliving-Homogeneous progression. Pricing would be difficult to work out, but then pricing for limited IT:DR/Vulnerability is kind of already a bit broken, particularly when comparing to Unliving/Homogeneous (IIRC, IT:DR that would protect against
one of Imp or Pi is around twice as expensive as equivalent protection from Unliving, or Homogeneous if you take out the price for its add-ons).